14 Facebook groups for the dialogue, deliberation, public participation, e-government and e-democracy community

Published by Tim on May 9, 2008 in Resources. 0 Comments

The following are a few Facebook groups we watch that deal with various aspects of dialogue, deliberation, public participation, e-government or e-democracy (membership numbers as of today):

  • C2D2 - Canadian Community for Dialogue and Deliberation (18 members)
    Community of interest on dialogue and deliberation. Conference held every two years.
  • Conversation Cafe (308 members)
    Conversation Cafes promote community, democracy and wisdom world-wide through generating millions of open, respectful public conversations.
  • e-democracy (346 members)
    For those interested in e-democracy, especially the efforts of E-Democracy.Org.
  • E-Demokratie.org (in German, 12 members)
    E-Government oder E-Verwaltung beschreiben die Darstellung von Regierungs- und Verwaltungshandeln. E-Government wird aber auch häufig synonym mit dem Begriff E-Demokratie (eDemocracy) verwendet. Im Detail muss dabei jedoch stark differenziert werden: so geht es bei E-Demokratie nicht nur um elektronisch gestütztes Regieren. Es geht um viel mehr, es geht um Legitimation, Partizipation und Öffentlichkeit.
  • ePractice.eu (97 members)
    epractice.eu is a good practice exchange scheme with a web portal, weekly newsletter, country factsheets, online library, practitioner profiles, events calendar and monthly workshops created by the European Commission for the professional community in eGovernment, e-Inclusion and eHealth. epractice.eu involves practitioners from all 27 Member States, EU-member candidate states and EFTA countries but others are welcome to join. The portal combines online activities with frequent offline exchanges: workshops, face-to-face meetings and public presentations. A large knowledge base of real-life case studies submitted by portal members is freely available. The Facebook extension is provided in order to bridge the gap between Facebook’s social and epractice.eu’s professional touch.
  • Everyday Democracy (53 members)
    Everyday Democracy (formerly the Study Circles Resource Center) is a national organization that helps local communities find ways for all kinds of people to think, talk and work together to solve problems. We work with neighborhoods, cities and towns, regions, and states, helping them pay particular attention to how racism and ethnic differences affect the problems they address.
  • Government 2.0 (205 members)
    A new governance construct is possible… Create it
  • I support participatory democracy! (395 members)
    This group is for people who believe that democracy only becomes meaningful when it involves its people in participatory decisionmaking processes.
  • ICT4Democracy (192 members)
    Gathering of citizens from across the world believing that Information and Communication Technologies can help in providing us with more and better democracy and are willing to do something about it … in their lifetime …
  • International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) (20 members)
    IAP2 is an association of members who seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments, institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest in nations throughout the world.
  • National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) (348 members)
    A group for those dedicated to solving tough problems with honest talk, quality thinking and collaborative action. Join us if you agree with Einstein, that the problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
  • Participatory Budgeting (158 members)
    Participatory Budgeting (PB) can be broadly defined as the participation of citizens in the decision-making process of budget allocation and monitoring public spending. Participation may take various forms, from effective decision-making power in the allocation of resources to more modest initiatives that confer voice during the development of the budget. This is a group for exchange of information among those interested in practices of participatory budgeting.
  • POLITECH INSTITUTE (European Center of Political Technologies) (112 members)
    POLITECH INSTITUTE is a not-for-profit international association (AISBL) and a European Center of Political Technologies located in Brussels, Capital of Europe, bridging public institutions, international institutions, governments, regional and local authorities, universities, research centers, think tanks, civil society and political leaders with technology actors for a better use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) towards the advancement of modern public governance and democracy.
  • The World Cafe (249 members)
    A group for practitioners of/people interested in the TWC.

Needless to say, most of these organizations maintain resource-heavy websites of their own.

It’s by no means an exhaustive list, but should give you a head start if you want to connect with people in this community via Facebook. If you happen to know of any additional Facebook groups in this area, feel free to leave a comment.

Announcing Project Z

Published by Tim on April 22, 2008 in About and Events. 1 Comment

These are the slightly modified slides from a quick presentation I gave last night at Web Monday Silicon Valley in San Francisco. It’s a first high-level introduction to our first product, a web application for problem solving and decision making in large groups.

We hope to have the initial pieces of an alpha version in place sometime over the coming weeks.

New European online community for e-participation and e-democracy

Published by Tim on April 5, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

I just joined a recently launched online community at epractice.eu, a portal created by the European Commission which connects practitioners from the e-government, e-participation, e-health etc. field from all across the European Union. It is “an interactive initiative that empowers its users to discuss and influence open government, policy-making and the way in which public administrations operate and deliver services.”

From the welcome message to their new eParticipation and eDemocracy Network:

Welcome to the eParticipation and eDemocracy Network

The eParticipation and eDemocracy Network is now open to all interested in issues such as eEngagement, eDeliberation, eInvolvement, eLegislation and eVoting, as well as eDecision, eRule and ePolicy-making. Despite this broad remit, however, these issues are all inter-related and contribute to new concepts and practices for the governance of our societies. Thus, it is also important not to see ‘e’ tools as separate from traditional democratic and participatory processes, for example there are potentially fundamental impacts on the relationships between representative and direct democracy. The community is an open platform for meeting and sharing experiences and knowledge, as well as for asking and providing support. It will encompass blog discussions, news items, good practices, promoting events and sharing documents and source material. It will also link to and help coordinate the various European Commission supported studies and projects directly relevant to eParticipation and eDemocracy. [...]

At Intellitics, that sounds like our cup of tea.

Already, a number of well-known European e-democracy practitioners and advocates have signed up. Given epractice.eu’s track record as a valuable resource in this field, I expect this community to get off to a great start.

Feel free to look me up. Look forward to insightful discussions and meeting great people.

What is public participation?

Published by Tim on March 24, 2008 in About, Dictionary and Research. 0 Comments

Following a recent IAP2 Northern California chapter meeting, I came across this definition of public participation:

What is Public Participation?

Public participation is the process by which an organization consults with interested or affected individuals, organizations, and government entities before making a decision. Public participation is two-way communication and collaborative problem solving with the goal of achieving better and more acceptable decisions. Public participation prevents or minimizes disputes by creating a process for resolving issues before they become polarized. Other terms sometimes used are “public involvement,” “community involvement,” or “stakeholder involvement.”

We are currently working on our first product, a web-based software application for problem solving and decision making in large groups. To some degree, what we have in mind is a public participation engine (at least for those parts of an engagement project that can feasibly be run online).

Tools for Participation: June 26-29, 2008 in Berkeley, CA

Published by Tim on February 17, 2008 in Events and Research. 0 Comments

Interesting conference coming up right in our backyard: Tools for Participation

At the dawn of the 21st century humankind faces challenges of profound proportions. The ability of people around the world to discuss, work, make decisions, and take action collaboratively is one of the most important capabilities for addressing these challenges.

Researchers, scholars, activists, advocates, artists, educators, technologists, designers, students, policy-makers, entrepreneurs, journalists and citizens are rising to these challenges in many ways, including, devising new communication technologies that build on the opportunities afforded by the Internet and other new (as well as old) media. The interactions between technological and social systems are of special and central importance in this area.

DIAC-08 combines CPSR’s 11th DIAC symposium with the third Conference on Online Deliberation. The joint conference is intended to provide a platform and a forum for highlighting socio-technological opportunities, challenges, and pitfalls in the area of community and civic action. Technology enhanced community action ranges from informal communities of practice to democratic governance of formal organizations to large social movements.

We are especially interested in technology development that is already being tested or fielded. We are also interested in theoretical and other intellectual work that helps build understanding and support for future efforts. In addition to exploring social technology, we must at the same time understand and advance the social context of technology, including its design, access, use, policy and evaluation, as well as intellectual frameworks and perspectives that inform technological as well as social innovation including requirements, case studies, critique and self-reflection, and infrastructures for future work.

Our areas of focus include but are not limited to: deliberative and collaborative systems, e-democracy and e-participation, mobilization and organization, negotiation, consultation, sustainability, community support systems, open source models, human rights, ecological awareness, conflict resolution, justice, transparency systems, media and civic journalism, media literacy, power research, citizen science, economic development and opportunity, peace and reconciliation, infrastructure development, policy, education, community networks, research and development for civil society, social software, virtual communities and civic intelligence.

[...]

Intellitics will be there.

Embracing research

Published by Tim on November 28, 2007 in Research and Resources. 1 Comment

From the November 26 issue of the Deliberative Democracy eBulletin (a must-read resource for us, click here to get to their archive and email subscription):

1 | Four Years of DDC Research and Practice
—–
Matt Leighninger writes about a draft discussion report, “Where is Democracy Headed? Four years of DDC research and practice” which is now available on the DDC wiki. In the report, Peter Levine and Lars Hasselblad Torres have described the findings, publications, and other products of the 2003 and 2005 Researcher and Practitioner meetings, and incorporated those ideas in an insightful essay on the future of deliberative democracy. They make twelve key observations on the state of the field and suggest seven critical steps for moving forward.

To read the draft and provide feedback visit: http://wiki.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php/Summary_Report

You can find Matt’s full blog post (and follow the discussion) here: Four years of DDC research and practice

Under “Ideas for Moving Forward”, the report lists a number of proposed areas for future research. The last paragraph is especially interesting with regard to what Intellitics does:

19. Give deeper attention to online methods

Since the Airlie House meeting in 2002, the DDC has deliberately included practitioners and proponents of online deliberation. However, the bulk of research has been devoted to face-to-face processes, and several interviewees wondered if there might still be a bias against technology. Polletta said, “I really think online is really important. We operate with this idea that face to face is the ideal form. All the research seems to suggest that you should generate your theories of deliberation based on what happens in face to face deliberation. Online is seen as a ‘peculiar’ form. ” However, face-to-face methods are more expensive and in some respects harder to implement.

At Intelltics, we want to contribute to this exciting field of work as much as we can. A few guidelines come to mind that we will try to follow:

  • Plan ahead — Design and build with research in mind (instead of it being a mere afterthought).
  • Provide access — Be available and open to outside research.
  • Share — Make any findings available to the dialogue and deliberation community or the public.

So, if you are a researcher and would like help us bring online dialogue and deliberation to the next level, let’s talk!

How to listen online?

Published by Tim on November 26, 2007 in Dialogue and Research. 2 Comments

It came up in the last post, and it is something we’ve been thinking about quite a bit: How to listen online?

Listening in real life is sometimes hard enough. It may require skilled facilitation. Oftentimes, we’re not trained to listen well. It is much easier to talk than to listen, and listen carefully.

Online, however, listening seems to become that much harder. Many of the cues we are used to in real life are missing: for example sound, tone of voice, facial expressions etc. — even silence.

So, if listening is essential to leading meaningful dialogue and the same holds true for online dialogue, then the 1,000,000 dollar question is:

How to listen online?

Over the coming weeks, I plan to share some of our findings here in this blog. If you have resources to share or questions you want to see addressed, please comment.

Quick comparison: Debate and deliberation

Published by Tim on November 18, 2007 in Dictionary. 1 Comment

Sandra S. Hodge, Ph.D. and Program Director Discovering Common Ground: Missouri Communities Deliberate at University of Missouri has a nice comparison chart that looks at the differences between debate and deliberation: Deliberation and Your Community: How to Convene and Moderate Local Public Forums Using Deliberative Decision-Making (training manual) (PDF, 1.1MB). The training manual is part of a resource kit for deliberative decision-making projects.

Debate vs. Deliberation

In debate, you search for weaknesses in another position In deliberation, you search for strength in another position.
In debate, you search for glaring differences. Deliberation involves concern for others.
Debate involves countering the other’s position at the expense of the relationship. Deliberation assumes that many people have pieces of an answer to a workable solution.
Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in your beliefs. In deliberation, you temporarily suspend your judgment of other’s beliefs.
Debate is oppositional and seeks to prove the other wrong. Deliberation is collaborative and seeks common understanding.
The goal of debate is winning – often only for a short-term advantage. The goal of deliberation is common ground for action, which is the basis for consistent policy.
In debate, you listen to find flaws and counter-arguments. In deliberation, you listen to understand and find meaning in agreement.
Debate defends assumptions as truth. Deliberation reveals assumptions for reevaluation.
Debate defends original solutions. Deliberation opens the possibility of better solutions.
In debate, you submit your best thinking and defend its rightness. In deliberation, you submit your best thinking in order to improve it.

Interestingly enough, while there have recently been quite a few initiatives that focus on building better tools for online debate the same cannot be said for online deliberation (at least as far as I am aware of).

One reason for that, in my view, is the fact that both dialogue and deliberation require very good listening skills on the part of the participants. And as difficult as listening may seem in real life, it is generally that much harder to do online.

Remembering Joseph M. Conway Jr., 1967-2007

Published by Tim on September 19, 2007 in About. 1 Comment

At a corporate picnic in Los Gatos, CA last August, the party host (some Senior VP of Marketing or similar rank at the company I worked for at the time), after welcoming the 100-plus employees who were attending that sunny afternoon, reminded everybody of the company’s strict don’t-drink-and-drive policy. For those who wanted to enjoy the selection of excellent wines or other alcoholic beverages (and do so beyond a level that is deemed safe for driving), it was made very clear that they were expected to leave their cars parked and either share a ride with a designated driver, have someone pick them up, or simply take a cab home. Everyone was asked to watch out for each other to make sure these rules were being followed.

He then went on to say that if anyone, for whatever reason, still ended up in a situation where they were stuck after the event (needing to get home but unfit to drive), the company would cover the cost of the cab, to anywhere — no conditions, no questions asked.

I remember that I was impressed by the prudence with which the risk of drunk driving was being addressed. And thinking: maybe if all of us (whether as bosses, colleagues, neighbors, friends, or family) offered this kind of “no questions asked” emergency pickup more often, we might be able to prevent a lot of bad things from happening.

***

I met Joe three times.

The first time in Tokyo, Japan in October of 2004.

The second time in Dublin, Ireland in April of 2005.

The third and last time in Rome, Italy in February of 2006.

Our partners were both working for the same organization and would go on these international business trips where, on occasion. we would have the chance to accompany them.

I have only fond memories of these three trips.

Last summer, I started talking to Joe about this project and some of the ideas I had in the area of online dialogue and deliberation. Joe was an excellent sounding board for me, always very helpful and supportive. Then, earlier this year, he even shared his expertise as a lawyer and helped with drafting some of the legal documents I was working on (a privacy policy, some terms of use etc.).

I definitely consider him part of the broader team I was building. And I was hoping that we’d get the opportunity to intensify our collaboration over time.

***

Sadly, prudence was sorely missing early Labor Day morning, when an alleged drunk driver going the wrong way on Staten Island’s West Shore Expressway crashed into the car Joe was driving, killing him and injuring his passenger.

He was 39 years old. We’ll miss him very much.

Follow Intellitics on Twitter

Published by Tim on September 12, 2007 in About. 0 Comments

In addition to this blog, you can now follow Intellitics on Twitter.

What is Twitter? According to Wikipedia:

Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send “updates” (text-based posts, up to 140 characters long) via SMS, instant messaging, email, to the Twitter website, or an application such as Twitterrific. [...]

Updates are displayed on the user’s profile page and also instantly delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them. The sender can restrict delivery to those in his or her circle of friends (delivery to everyone is the default). Users can receive updates via the Twitter website, instant messaging, SMS, RSS, email or through an application.

If you’re interested in receiving infrequent updates from us (very low volume for now), simply add Intellitics to the list of people you follow on Twitter.